tell me lobster what limits us human beings from taking rebirth as an insect ?

Mostly capacity.

There are,” says a poet as ingenious as profound, “more things in heaven and earth, than aredreamt of in our philosophy.”

Recently String Theory was a big deal. Originally it said that there were 21 physical dimensions, but the scientists were not comfortable with that idea, so they whittled it down to 11. But people accepted the idea that there were 11 physical dimensions quite readily, even though such a thing was unimaginable--unless you were really really stoned. A buddy of mine keeps up on that type of stuff, and it turns out that String Theory isn't working out. Evidently is is based on something called 'super-symetry', and the particle accelerator at Cern is coming up with data disproving super-symetry. Oh well, I guess the whole 11 dimension thing was just a fad. But a lot of people bought into it for a while. Oh well, easy come, easy go.

There is no data either proving or disproving karma and reincarnation, and it has been around for a few thousand years. It is an internally consistent paradigm that is in accord with what we see in the world. We see people die not having received the poetic justice they deserve, either good or bad. We see children born to wildly different scenarios with no apparent justification. The explanation of karma and reincarnation is plausible, and so one can, if they so choose, take it as a working hypothesis. Doing so does a couple of things immediately; it puts the grand scheme of things beyond what we can see. That is necessary if we are to come to the conclusion that we are, on some level, ignorant as the Buddha says. If we believe that what we see and understand is all there is, we cannot have an open mind as to what is beyond our limited horizons. In his teachings, Sakyamuni said that he had awakened from the sleeplike ignorance, and that we could take refuge from our own limited understanding of life in his unlimited understanding. His claim to have solved the problem of dukha, which includes the dukha of small infants that suffer and die, as well the dukha of animals.

So it is necessary to concede the point that the way we see things is faulty and limited in order to accept the Refuge Sakyamuni offers us. The first and foremost fault is in how we see and experience ourselves on the most intimate levels. We are not only ignorant about the cycle of life and death, but about what is real about our own lives. That concession is said to be the basis for all other Dharma practice, and accepting Sakyamuni's perspective=Taking Refuge=the definition of what it is to be a Buddhist. If you insist on taking refuge in how you already see things, you are, according to Dharma, taking refuge in your own unawareness. That is a Catch-22 that keeps you cycling in samsara. Ultimately, by knocking on the door of Dharma, it is possible to sow the karmic seeds to have an open mind, but that usually is a very slow process. A closed mind in a Dharma context is very hard for the benefits of Dharma practice to overcome.

So good luck with it.

Last edited by smcj on Mon Sep 23, 2013 4:23 pm, edited 10 times in total.

A human being has his limits. And thus, in every conceivable way, with every possible means, he tries to make the teaching enter into his own limits. ChNN

Seishin wrote:by extension, you also must believe that anyone who believes in God or some kind of higher power is also insane. That would make the vast majority of the entire world insane.

If you qualify insanity as something that can be transmitted ('memetically') by infection, then you can imagine how many atheists already agree with this. It's not really a problem for those who see things differently, but on the part of those atheists, it does suggest an insecurity about their own beliefs. People who value their minds enough to form their own beliefs in the first place are likely to feel affronted by the possibility of not being 100% right, and likely to hold the *false* belief that if God/rebirth/whatever is real, then not only were they 'missing something out', but that this proves they were stupid.

'Insanity' also has connotations of having discovered more truth (rather than fabricating more falsehood) than the individual or (even) human mind can handle. Surely some Buddhists sometimes wish they could regain the innocence of mind it takes to discount the possibility of rebirth, just as the knowledge of evolution has been regretted.

"Removing the barrier between this and that is the only solution" {Chogyam Trungpa - "The Lion's Roar"}

I've removed many posts from this thread which were offensive (characterized by name-calling), or irrelevant. Kindly keep the discussion civil, recall this is a board for the purpose of discussing Buddha Dharma, and all the other good things that follow from that.

If you see any further or , please do not hesitate to hit the "report" button and one of us will respond.

Thank you.

Need help getting on retreat? Want to support others in practice? Pay the Dana for Dharma forum a visit...

And one more moderator note:It is good for all of us to at least be somewhat familiar with the mechanics of making a reasoned argument and not an argument full of appeal to emotion, red herrings, and name calling.

If there is a position X and then a response of:"Only ignorant, uneducated people believe in X" is not an argument at all;

it is merely a form of ad hominem, abusive fallacy, psychogenetic fallacy, and / or appeal to ridicule.

A valid argument is one that addresses the issue directly without the use of emotion and name calling. Also, even lack of physical evidence on one side does not in itself deem a position to be untrue. That is the fallacy of argumentum e silentio. The other side must provide its own evidence and present it to refute an issue.

Belief in rebirth does not make one insane, as you suggest. If you truly believe this, then by extension, you also must believe that anyone who believes in God or some kind of higher power is also insane. That would make the vast majority of the entire world insane.

One of the most fundamental doctrines of Buddhism is anatta, or anatman -- no soul or no self. There is no permanent essence of an individual self that survives death. Most of us including many following partial dharma prefer a different model. The insanity of samsaric existence means a sense of continuity, purpose from on high and other empty extensions of desire and ignorance are very persuasive.How would you describe the extensions?

Belief in rebirth does not make one insane, as you suggest. If you truly believe this, then by extension, you also must believe that anyone who believes in God or some kind of higher power is also insane. That would make the vast majority of the entire world insane.

One of the most fundamental doctrines of Buddhism is anatta, or anatman -- no soul or no self. There is no permanent essence of an individual self that survives death. Most of us including many following partial dharma prefer a different model. The insanity of samsaric existence means a sense of continuity, purpose from on high and other empty extensions of desire and ignorance are very persuasive.How would you describe the extensions?

Sounds like you're positing an individual self that exists in the 5 skandhas, such that upon the break up of the body, it no longer exists.This is categorically defined as "wrong view".In fact in a few places I can think of, the more eternalistic take is considered "right view with effluents" and not specifically "wrong view".So your supposed extensions apply much more so to your own stance.

EDIT: just to source myself...

MN117 wrote:And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no contemplatives or brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view.

"And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions [of becoming]; there is right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

"And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions.

"And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for awakening, the path factor of right view in one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

"One makes an effort for the abandoning of wrong view & for entering into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort, & right mindfulness — run & circle around right view."

Note: The statement: "'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no contemplatives or brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view." corresponds to the arguments made by those who espoused the athiest-materialist/positivist view of the time.

I really don't get why materialists/positivists need to proselytize so much.Even if those with a more eternalist bent are "wrong", they're surely happy & at peace that way.Adopting that world view would not make them any happier.Nobody's forcing materialists/positivists to label themselves Buddhists. It just stands to reason that if one was going to identify with a particular doctrine that they would at least have some respect for the major tenets, not try to re-write everything to suit their preferences, and certainly not run around telling everyone else that's been practicing that they are wrong.Just don't get it.

It is common for those who have not followed a Dharmic path to any depth to regard Buddha Dharma as the established path that they least disagree with...So far so good.However having established that somewhat shaky relationship a proportion of those people then set about telling the committed why they are wrong...In other words they project their doubts ( which are ok in themselves ) all across the screen of their perceptions and lecture others about the REAL meaning of these issues which, surprise , only they and a few like minded people know.So they deliver their pearls of wisdom on a range of topics that they have only read about or heard one address concerning...Sooner or later one notices that they do not appear any more..We can assume that they are off busily not being Sufis or not being Vedantists or taking a wryly detached view of Kabbalah...etc etc etc.

Well other God-centred religions (note the breakdown of the word 'a-theism') hardly do things differently

PorkChop wrote:Even if those with a more eternalist bent are "wrong", they're surely happy & at peace that way.Adopting that world view would not make them any happier.Nobody's forcing materialists/positivists to label themselves Buddhists.

Well apart from the obvious and generally mistaken argument that atheism would -atleast in the medium-to-long-term- bring a kind of carefree, comfortable happiness to its converts, there's also the negative - Beyond the obvious tribalism, surely no 'Atheist' would disagree with the statement that religious tendencies are childish, in spite of the fact that children aren't generally known for their spiritual development. In many cases, therefore, there's bound to be a subconscious sense that if an unbeliever (in this case labelled 'a believer') can be converted, then they might re-channel the energy left behind by religion into useful activities, and integrate into society in a smoother and more mature way

PorkChop wrote:It just stands to reason that if one was going to identify with a particular doctrine that they would at least have some respect for the major tenets, not try to re-write everything to suit their preferences, and certainly not run around telling everyone else that's been practicing that they are wrong.

No. Remember the legend of the Trojan Horse. If you really refuse to tolerate the continued existence of some aspect of your world, the most effective way of destroying it is to claim it as your own and that you belong at its helm. UK readers may recall that former Prime Minister Tony Blair tried this with the (socialist) Labour party, although he resigned after failing to convert enough party members to prevent his rivals from sticking with the old ways. Of course, the feelings of Lobster, Batchelor etc., and even Blair towards the beasts they've parried with are bound to have been far greater and more nuanced, but religions/political movements etc. have a habit of being so all-embracing that atleast one part is bound to grate with one's sensibilities. The question is how one deals with this irritation, and there's no one right way imho.

"Removing the barrier between this and that is the only solution" {Chogyam Trungpa - "The Lion's Roar"}

Sounds like you're positing an individual self that exists in the 5 skandhas, such that upon the break up of the body, it no longer exists.

Is that just a sound, which breaks up when not said or heard but continues long after . . . perhaps to reemerge as a faint echo?

Analogy that gets used is passing a flame from one torch to another (the torch a metaphor for the body).It's not the same flame, because that flame is a constant flux & nonstatic.It's not a completely separate flame either, because it was lit by the first.

lobster wrote:

This is categorically defined as "wrong view".In fact in a few places I can think of, the more eternalistic take is considered "right view with effluents" and not specifically "wrong view".

How does this "right view with effluents" work out in direct bug rebirth?